It actually started after Al Gore’s defeat when the Democratic Party began to accept that gun control as an issue was hurting it. The thinkers and strategists that built the 2006 comeback did so on a “blue dog” strategy, of running Democrats who could win in their districts, which included being pro-gun if that’s what it took. Obama largely laid off the gun issue in his first term, largely because gun control threatened the seats of his blue dog coalition. In 2010, the blue dogs decided to en mass, unbox the tantō Obama had laid before them proceeded to commit ritual suicide one after the other…. by voting for Obamacare. The resulting political backlash was so severe that the gun vote couldn’t protect them, despite NRA endorsing a large number of Democrats.

Additionally, despite NRA’s endorsement of Harry Reid in the past, in the 2010 election cycle they experienced a backlash from their membership, largely driver by talking heads and conservative radio shows, most of which don’t give a rat’s ass about gun rights short of its usefulness to them for promoting conservatism as a whole or promoting themselves. The official line was that judicial votes now matter, and I think they ought to, but the perception (in politics, it’s perception that matters) was that NRA stiffed the Majority Leader because he was a Democrat, and their membership are conservative voters rather than single-issue voters.

After the death of the blue dog coalition, and Harry Reid getting stiffed, the Democrats no longer viewed being amenable to gun rights as being in their political interests. Then Bloomberg comes along with a huge pot of money and that seals the deal. If there’s ever going to be a bipartisan consensus on gun rights again, it’ll happen because the Dems have political talent to protect, and that has to start somewhere. Long term safety for this issue will only come if there’s a bipartisan consensus to protect gun rights. As long as this issue is tied to only one party it is tied to the fortunes of that party, and the fortunes of any political party go up and down as the political winds blow.

9 Responses to “NRA Endorses Dem for MO Governor: A Good First Step on the Road Back”

“The thinkers and strategists that built the 2006 comeback did so on a “blue dog” strategy, of running Democrats who could win in their districts, which included being pro-gun if that’s what it took. ”

Well… that’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is they won by perpetrating to be either pro gun dems, or not hostile to pro-gun people. Jim Webb was pro-gun, but also pro-Obama, pro-HRC, pro-wise-latina-racist, etc. In fact, Webb owns guns, has a CCW and had at least equal positions to George Allen who had only a tepid support of guns as a ‘record’. Allen got NRA’s endorsement in a very deceitful game by NRA-ILA. They alleged to have never received Webb’s survey, but Webb had a copy of the survey that he faxed and the fax report showing he did send it to NRA-ILA. Someone was lying.

Webb voted pro-gun, but, he voted to confirm liberal, and starkly anti-gun federal court appointees. The Senate asked Sotomayor directly if Heller was settled law and if the RKBA applied to the states, she (perjuring herself), answered yes, it did, yet after approval voted against Mcdonald.

While Webb was elected in a democratic wave election and he was a blue dog, pro-gun dem, many of his colleagues from that party were liars, plain and simple. Manchin is a good example who used the “say I’m pro-gun” make the right moves, get elected and it no longer matters model. It worked. Once you saw the more slippery characters do this and win, the die was cast.

While the NRA-ILA should be non-partisan, it should also keep an eye on the long game and should score more than they do. For example

parliamentary games to prevent pro-gun bills from getting to the floor, or out of committee. Motions to table, reconsider indefinitely or send back to committee. Etc.

Votes for / against pro-gun judges and justices or anti-gun ones.
Advise and consent votes for non-judicial posts for anti-gun people.

and on and on.

I’m not sure the MO endorsement being talked about is a publicity “win” for NRA-ILA. Their position is that there is a Dem. record, and the Republican has no record but answered their questions solidly pro-gun. That’s a great position for MO gun owners to be in, but tough for NRA-ILA.

Almost all politicians pick their positions on issues based on what is expedient for them politically. There are almost no true believers out there. What do you call a Congressman who sticks to his principles regardless of what his constituents think? Former congressman. They’re all telling you what they think you want to hear, and voting the way they think will help them win re-election.

Good summary, but you gloss over the role of the NRA’s money-making goals here. Their strategy for growing membership was to court the tea party. If they thought they could get more money sticking with the Dems, they would have.

As a Missouri resident, I’m pretty happy about the position that it puts us in for next year. I don’t really trust Greitens, but he went hardcore on guns in the primary, so I don’t really see him backing down on that. And Koster has supported SB 656… So even we don’t get a veto override on it. It looks like it will pass next year, regardless of who owns the Governor’s seat.

You can’t support Democrats at the National Level because even if there was such as thing as a “pro gun” Democrat Senator, he’s still voting for Chuck Schumer as majority leader. You can’t be pro-gun and support the most vehemently anti-Second Amendment senator in the US Senate for a leadership post who will then bring up anti-gun bills if they are in the majority. Supporting a pro-gun Democrat governor is one thing if they don’t then end up being a turncoat like so many other Democrats have done.

And the NRA has been exactly that short-sighted. I don’t give a rat’s how these clowns vote on bills, when they are voting to confirm leftist judges and Cabinet members like Holder and Lynch who will take away our gun rights far more effectively.